I just rented the new "Director's Cut" of THX-1138 and after watching this new movie made of 35-year-old footage and listening to the commentary and watching the documentaries, I think I've finally figured out what the problem with George Lucas tinkering with his old movies is. It isn't a case of an artist altering his work. It is about an innovative young artist who was trying to re-write the language of film having his work vandalized by a middle-aged movie executive with a lot of technical skill but little understanding of what made the movie work.

There is a point in the documentary on American Zoetrope where Lucas complains about how Warners cut THX by five minutes for apparently no other reason than to show that they could. I have to wonder how the 25-year-old Lucas would have reacted if a 50-ish executive had told him, "You've got to open up the world with some special effects. It looks too claustrophobic. And instead of a midget, let's use some weird animated creature for the shell people."

The strange thing is, Lucas still talks like the young avant-garde artist of 1970. He just doesn't do anything to support it. For instance, one of the most unintentionally ironic parts of the DVD is during the climatic chase scene. In his commentary (which seems to have been recorded before the changes were made), Lucas explains how he wanted to create a stripped down car chase. Nothing but the car speeding through a tunnel. No swerving to avoid obstacles. No near misses. As he explains this, the film is showing a videogame-quality CGI sequence of the car speeding through traffic, swerving to miss the other cars, etc.

If I may indulge in some (probably overly simplistic) armchair analysis, two things in the documentary seem to me to be a key to Lucas's personality. First of all, when Lucas and Francis Coppola were forming American Zoetrope, Lucas was always looked on as the pessimist. He was always worrying about what would go wrong. Coppola on the other hand, would charge ahead without a second thought. Also, it was Lucas who encouraged Coppola to direct THE GODFATHER, arguing that it was the only way he could keep afloat financially.

It seems to me that for the last thirty years, Lucas has been so focused on making sure Lucasfilm was financially successful and stable that he never got around to making the abstract films he keeps saying he's interested in. During the same time period, Coppola seemed to be constantly on the verge of bankruptcy, yet has made a string of personal and innovative films.

Excellent analysis. I agree completely. :thumbsup:

Me three.

It seems to me that for the last thirty years, Lucas has been so focused on making sure Lucasfilm was financially successful and stable that he never got around to making the abstract films he keeps saying he's interested in. During the same time period, Coppola seemed to be constantly on the verge of bankruptcy, yet has made a string of personal and innovative films.

What?? Have you forgotten Howard the Duck? If that isn't abstract I don't know what is (by "abstract" I mean you have to be sufficiently stoned to appreciate it).

Seriously, vount me in as a "me four". I agree with your analysis 100%.

José

And then you watch "American Graffitti" which is as about near perfect as you can get and all George.

Jim

Actually you can't physically get stoned enough to appreciate Howard the Duck. Okay I was drunk not stoned, but still thought it was a POS.

Otherwise agree completely.

I've seen a number of postive responses to the changes in 1138. I look forward to seeing it sometime soon.

It isn't a case of an artist altering his work. It is about an innovative young artist who was trying to re-write the language of film having his work vandalized by a middle-aged movie executive with a lot of technical skill but little understanding of what made the movie work.

Man, that is absolutely spot-on brilliant.

It seems to me that for the last thirty years, Lucas has been so focused on making sure Lucasfilm was financially successful and stable that he never got around to making the abstract films he keeps saying he's interested in. During the same time period, Coppola seemed to be constantly on the verge of bankruptcy, yet has made a string of personal and innovative films.

Gimme a break.

Lucas has spent the last 30 years raising a family, finishing the Star Wars saga, and almost single-handedly ushering in a new age of filmmaking. Coppola has spent the last 30 years making movies like "Dracula", "Jack", "The Rainmaker", and half a dozen other equally forgettable titles. Oh yeah, he also makes a decent wine.

Lucas has stated time and again it was his intention to finish "Star Wars" and return to making the sort of weird, little, abstract films that put him on the map in the first place. A friend who knows Lucas says he's currently working on the first of these experimental projects, and assures me it is indeed weird, little and abstract (so much so it is unlikely to see a wide theatrical release).

Lucas has always been cautious with money, but from a creative standpoint he's never been afraid of taking chances. The irony is that when George Lucas takes chances he's accused of being a soulless money-grubbing childhood-stealing technocrat by armchair critics who think they know more about making a George Lucas film than George Lucas does.

well said Martin! i'm really tired of the Lucas backlash and how all he cares about is money.
all the SW fans who constantly rag on him about his so-called "bad prequels" are welcome to make their own Star Wars. but your right, most dont know ***t about film making.

Let's See. Lucas as Feature Film Director:

THX-1138
American Graffiti
Star Wars
Episode I
Episode II
Episode III


Francis Coppola as Feature Film Director:

Dementia 13
You're a Big Boy Now
Finian's Rainbow
The Rain People
The Godfather
The Conversation
The Godfather Part II
Apocalypse Now
One From The Heart
The Outsiders
Rumble Fish
The Cotton Club
Peggy Sue Got Married
Gardens of Stone
Tucker: The Man and His Dream
The Godfather Part III
Bram Stoker's Dracula
Jack
The Rainmaker

... and he also makes a decent wine.

I hope I don't get lumped into the Lucas bashers. I like the STAR WARS prequels. I own them all on DVD. I'd probably watch any one of them before I'd watch THX-1138, even in its original form. I don't believe that "pure intentions = great movies." My point is that the Lucas of 2005 is not the Lucas of 1970. There is a purity and singular vision to the original THX that is ruined by the older Lucas's attempts to "improve" it.

As for Coppola, say what you want about movies like ONE FROM THE HEART, RUMBLE FISH, or DRACULA, in each case he was trying to make something unique. Sometimes he succeeds, sometimes he doesn't.

Lucas isn't even trying. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy the idea that he didn't have time in the last thirty years to make his quirky, personal films. Any director would kill to have the clout and financial security Lucas has. If he hasn't made the types of films he really wants to do, it is his own fault.

Zorro, if your point is to establish that between the two filmmakers Lucas has made a greater impact on both the filmmaking process and the pop-cultural landscape, I heartily agree.

Zorro, if your point is to establish that between the two filmmakers Lucas has made a greater impact on both the filmmaking process and the pop-cultural landscape, I heartily agree.


Heh! That wasn't exactly my point but you are certainly correct about the two categories you mention. I merely know which films from those lists I will watch over and over through the years, and which I won't. I don't generally watch movies for their "technical" aspects, but I do appreciate some aspects of "Pop Culture". I also appreciate a good wine.

come on, like we know what it's like to be Lucas! it's easy to say why did'nt he do this or that! i dont know what he does with his time, why do some guys think they know what Lucas "oughtta do..."???

It isn't a matter of what I think Lucas "oughtta do". If he wants to do nothing but STAR WARS spinoffs and sequels, I have no problem with that. My point is 1) He shouldn't be messing around with an innovative, inventive young filmmaker's movie, even if that filmmaker used to be him. 2) In interviews he has made it very clear that he really wants to make quirky, personal, art-house films. If you're 60-years-old before you start making what you really want to, I think you need to re-evaluate your career.

so you think you know what a 60 year old film maker outta do??

GL has always been a pioneer, why not when he is 60?
i think you need to re evaluate that GL is not your ordinary filmmaker. if he was, you never would have gotten Star Wars

Although Lucas has certainly been an innovator when it comes to technology, in terms of storytelling and film technique I think he reached his peak with THX and GRAFFITTI. The idea of people held prisoner in a white void that they can walk out of if they had the will is more original and creative than anything in the STAR WARS films.

Again, Lucas can do whatever he wants. If he wants to spend the rest of his life doing small, arthouse films, fine. If he wants to spend the rest of his life working on STAR WARS, fine. I just think there is a disconnect about his stated ambitions and his actions. If someone says he is interested in making abstract films and then spends thirty years making commercial blockbusters, I think I have the right to call him on it. If someone decides to re-shape his earlier work into something that suits his present sensibilities, I have the right to crtiticize that.

so your going to hold Lucas to something he said YEARS AGO?
dont know about you but i've changed the direction of my life 10 times!

i just dont understand your beef with him.

This isn't something he's said years ago. He's still saying it.

My main beef is that he has no respect for the filmmaker he was in his twenties and thirties. Like many artists, he has grown, he has developed a personal theory about his work, and when he looks back at his work, he evaluates their flaws and strengths. And like most artists, his evaluation is at odds with the public's reaction. Lucas isn't the first filmmaker to remake his earlier work. But in most cases such as Hitchcock's THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, or Howard Hawks's EL DORADO, the more technically accomplished remake often turns out flat and lifeless. The difference is that instead of remaking THX or STAR WARS from scratch, Lucas decided to rework the original material and pull the original from distribution.

This line that "this is what I originally intended" is nonsense. This is what the middle-aged Lucas would have done if he was around in the '70s.

If someone decides to re-shape his earlier work into something that suits his present sensibilities, I have the right to crtiticize that.On the other hand, he has always expressed dissatisfaction with the first Star Wars film as it was originally released. I remember a comment from him in the early days -- pre-ESB, I believe -- to the effect that the first film was only about 25 percent of what he had wanted it to be.

Qapla'

SSB

On the other hand, he has always expressed dissatisfaction with the first Star Wars film as it was originally released. I remember a comment from him in the early days -- pre-ESB, I believe -- to the effect that the first film was only about 25 percent of what he had wanted it to be.

Qapla'

SSB
Even if he had gotten 100%, that doesn't mean it would have been four times better. Even with the technical and financial limitations he faced, the final product touched something in the public that resulted in it being the highest grossing movie of all time.

Have you ever seen THE GREAT DICTATOR or LIMELIGHT? Charlie Chaplin had pretty much carte blanche on these films. I'm sure they reflected his sensibilities at that time and were exactly the type of films he wanted to make. They are also often pretentious and schmaltzy. They can't hold a candle to his earlier, silent films. I'd hate to think what the older Chaplin would have done with CITY LIGHTS or MODERN TIMES if he had the opportunity to make a "special edition director's cut."

lemme great this straight, yur saying Lucas outta respect his former self?

thats absurd. thats makes no sense.

a man can't change? a man can't develop the way he wants too?

who are you to say he need to respect his former self?
sure it's your opinion but there is no validity in some one to respect "who your were"

maybe he had issues about himself yesterday and feels better about himself today.

if you read his bio, he clearly had negative confidence issues about his writing and directing. he is a more complete man today and to say he "outta be who he was yesterday" is not very well thought out.

irregardless, i'm sure Mr. Lucas will do what he wants, when he wants and make want he wants despite many "so-called" fans who "think" they know him better than he does.

I'm not saying he shouldn't change. I'm saying he shouldn't pretend that older self didn't exist. Fine, he's a more confident and technically skilled director today. But he was making more interesting films when he was in his twenties. If he doesn't like them, fine. Make something better. To use THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH example again, Hitchcock's own evaluation of the two versions was that the original was made by a talented amateur and the remake was the work of a professional. Fair enough. Except that most people prefer the product of the talented amateur.

I think one of your comments demonstrates the difference between us. I am not a fan of Lucas. I am a fan of some of his work. Yes, he can do what he wants. Yes, what he produces is his personal vision. That doesn't mean that it is any good.

To suggest that we can't compare THX-1138 (1971) to THX-1138 (2004) and critique the differences because Lucas is doing just what he wants is nothing more than idol worship.

I would say that Lucas has helped to improve the tools and process of making a movie, but I'd say that James Cameron has done as much on a Project Management side of movie making. He has a really amazing approach to planning the production.

you are being contridictory. you say your a fan of his films, you say "what he produces is his personal vision". then you say "I am not a fan of Lucas".

that makes no sense. his films are his indirect personal vision, but you dont like Lucas but you like his films...................HUH????


i highly doubt Lucas cares about "fan worship".

to want every film to be like American Graffiti was never going to happen and that film was not that great anyway. it's highly flawed and not very well done technically.....AND I LOVE THAT MOVIE!!!

I never said I don't like Lucas. I just mean that I am able to separate the creation from the creator.

To give an extreme example, I don't like Quentin Tarantino. When I see him on talk shows I find him obnoxious and irritating. His approach to writing and moviemaking is totally wrong. He seems to be more interested in the process of making movies than the final product.

Yet he produced PULP FICTION and the KILL BILL movies. Some of my favorite films of recent years.

Often good movies are produced in spite of the filmmaker's efforts. Often terrible movies are made with the best of intentions. The only thing we can judge is the final product.

to want every film to be like American Graffiti was never going to happen and that film was not that great anyway. it's highly flawed and not very well done technically.....AND I LOVE THAT MOVIE!!!

I asked you on another thread what some of the "flaws" were with "American Graffiti" but you never replied. And what, in your opinion, is "wrong" with it technically? What is your "technical" assessment of the sound mix in particular? Just curious.

i highly doubt Lucas cares about "fan worship".
Not the point. We shouldn't accept anything Lucas (or any writer/director/artist) does uncritically, just because that is what he wants to do.

to want every film to be like American Graffiti was never going to happen and that film was not that great anyway. it's highly flawed and not very well done technically.....AND I LOVE THAT MOVIE!!!
Again. Not my point. As you pointed out, Lucas has changed over the years. (Which is pretty much my original point.) The 60-year-old Lucas couldn't direct AMERICAN GRAFFITTI and the 27-year-old Lucas couldn't have directed REVENGE OF THE SITH. If Lucas wants to make another movie about high-schoolers in the '60 or a stark dystopian drama, I say great. I'd love to see it. Just leave the work of that twenty-something kid alone.

I have no more of a problem with George Lucas "tweaking" his films in order to match his "vision" of what he sees them to be than I did with Coppola re-editing the Godfather films into a "saga".

The main difference being that with Coppola and the Godfather films, you are given a choice of watching the "saga" version as well as the untouched originals.

My only complaint is with the "historical revisionist" attitude Lucas demonstrates whereas the original versions "no longer exist", and the public is denied access to the films as they saw them originally in the theaters.

Even if he had gotten 100%, that doesn't mean it would have been four times better. Even with the technical and financial limitations he faced, the final product touched something in the public that resulted in it being the highest grossing movie of all time.Granted -- but it does address the idea that the hypothetical younger version of himself might have been open to the different version of the film as it exists today. I guess I just take issue with the idea that anyone other than the man himself is equipped to argue on behalf of his "younger self." It's that ... pathway to the argument (as opposed to the argument itself), for lack of a better term, that strikes me as hubris.

I have gone on record in the past that I also wish and hope that the original theatrical release versions of the original trilogy -- heck, even of the first two prequels -- will be made available at some point. I just don't plan to lose any sleep if they aren't. And I freely admit that I want to see them purely for my own amusement -- I won't try to make the argument that they should be available on the grounds of some altruistic, "film history" purpose. I say that not because I believe one cannot make that argument, but because I am personally not interested in waging such a battle. It simply isn't why I want the originals to enjoy, in addition to and right beside the revised cuts.

Qapla'

SSB

then again, all we are talking about is the movies. it's not life........right??


or do some of you guys take the movies as something more?

It is a testament to the impact of George Lucas’ films that so many of his fans feel obliged to help manage his creative agenda. That no two fans can agree on what the specifics of that agenda should be is seemingly beside the point.

The current debate boils down to whether of not George Lucas “The Aging Mogul” is mucking-up the work of George Lucas “The Young Filmmaker”(the inference being the two are mutually exclusive). With regard to STAR WARS the issue is complicated by the fact that the saga was constructed from the middle outward over a period of thirty years, with Old Lucas having to complete a story Young Lucas began. Many older (40-something) fans dislike the most recent S.W. episodes, and resent Lucas for tweaking the earlier installments in order to create a stronger visual and contextual continuity between the two trilogies. I disagree with this view for reasons discussed in depth and at length elsewhere on this board, and I won’t rehash those arguments here.

Which brings us to THX:1138 – THE SPECIAL EDITION. I’m one of those people who found the original THX easier to admire than to watch. Certainly it’s brimming with ideas, but so is a textbook. More than any other movie I can think of THX feels as if it was manufactured by a machine. In telling the story of a distant, remote, and heartless world Lucas made a distant, remote, and heartless film. Even the sex scenes feel antiseptic. This emotional disconnect may explain why the changes Lucas made for the Special Edition don’t particularly bother me; rather than interrupting the narrative flow it feels to me as if Lucas was simply giving his film a long overdue tune-up. Still, there are those who consider the original to be a landmark film, and I can empathize with their dismay over Lucas’s tinkering. Sci-Fi film fans are a proprietary lot, and the audience for THX is small enough without pissing off the core constituency.

Granted -- but it does address the idea that the hypothetical younger version of himself might have been open to the different version of the film as it exists today. I guess I just take issue with the idea that anyone other than the man himself is equipped to argue on behalf of his "younger self." It's that ... pathway to the argument (as opposed to the argument itself), for lack of a better term, that strikes me as hubris.

Point taken. On the other hand, I don't think artists are always the best judge of their work. In the '30s, H.G. Wells thought most of his early work was dated and naive. He even actively discouraged the making of a film version of WAR ON THE WORLDS.

But as for the original STAR WARS only being 25% of what he wanted. The problem with this is that it wasn't as if his budget was slashed in the middle of production, or he had to meet a release date and couldn't complete it. He knew while making it what sort of financial and technological limitations he was working under. He designed the movie around these limitations. They are an integral part of the final product.

Think of it this way. Suppose a director is making a movie and he has a part that is perfect for Robert DeNiro. But he can't afford him, so he goes for someone who's cheaper and doesn't fit the part as well. Say, Bob Hoskins. (Don't laugh. This almost happened with THE UNTOUCHABLES.) The movie comes out and it's a big hit. Is the director then justified in reshooting all of Hoskin's scenes with DeNiro and inserting them into the movie? Making something that more closely matches his original vision?

Or how about this? What if he did get DeNiro? But a few years later, he makes a movie with Christopher Walken and decides he would have been perfect for the earlier part. Could he then reshoot the scenes with Walken?

I don't think artists are always the best judge of their work.

Who else did you have in mind?

Lucas' creative vision may not always be 20/20 but I think he's done pretty well under the circumstances.

...as for the original STAR WARS only being 25% of what he wanted. The problem with this is that it wasn't as if his budget was slashed in the middle of production...


For the record, Lucas knew he couldn't make the STAR WARS he envisioned for the amount Fox was offering but he didn't want to blow the deal. Rather than turn a flashing green light into a solid red light he signed off on a budget he knew to be unrealistic in the hopes that Alan Ladd Jr. would be able to cajole the Fox board into kicking in additional funds once production was underway. Alas, underwhelming dailies did not inspire the board's confidence -- and while Fox did pick up the tab for a single day's worth of additional Cantina footage, the extra funding Lucas had secretly been banking on never materialized.

Make all the hypothetical comparisons you want, the fact remains THE STAR WARS saga is unique in terms of the extraordinary conditions under which it was conceived and produced. Clearly Lucas views these films as a whole rather than as individual components, and I have no problem granting Old George the creative license to finish what Young George began. I think the two Georges have more in common than you think.

Or how about this? What if he did get DeNiro? But a few years later, he makes a movie with Christopher Walken and decides he would have been perfect for the earlier part. Could he then reshoot the scenes with Walken?If it is his legal right to do so, as it is with Lucas to tinker with Star Wars to his heart's content, then I'd say yes -- providing, of course, that DeNiro's contract didn't specify that not happen. That doesn't, of course, mean the result would be good, bad, or even just a wash (in a creative sense) -- and it doesn't mean anyone must like the result, anymore than anyone had to like the result of having DeNiro in the part originally. It just means he can. Should he make the original still available? Probably, from a creative point of view -- one of the things I'd like to see with the unaltered Star Wars films is a split-screen comparison with the special editions -- but if he doesn't want to do that and isn't legally required to do, then it's his decision. And I would be extraordinarily wary of any attempt to make requiring all these things a legal requirement, at least at a blanket, "statutory" level. Make it part of contract negotiations, perhaps, but no further than that.

Qapla'

SSB

I also appreciate a good wine.

And, evidently, a good 'Whine'.

- GJS

I think everyone agrees that Lucas has the legal right to do whatever he wants with his films. He could turn them into porno movies if he wanted to. That's not the issue. The question is whether he has an obligation to perserve the integrity of the original material, in the form it was orginally released, even if it didn't completely meet his expectations. What's strange is that when the recent colorized version of the Three Stooges came out, Lucas criticized that, saying they should respect the original films. He just seems to have a blind spot when it comes to his own work.

The question is whether he has an obligation to perserve the integrity of the original material, in the form it was orginally released, even if it didn't completely meet his expectations.I would say the answer to that question is "no." I do not believe he has any such obligation. Do I hope he will do that? Sure. But the final decision belongs to him and him alone.

Not that you've advanced this argument, but when we bought tickets to see the original movies, that is all we bought -- a viewing of them. We did not, as many do try to suggest, somehow acquire partial ownership of the movies themselves just because seeing them was a formative experience, or whatever it meant to any particular person. We each retain the memories of having been there and seeing the movie, and those are ours to keep. But the movies themselves belong to Lucas. As an artist, I would resist mightily any attempt by someone else to somehow claim the right to make any decision about what I could or could not do with any piece of art I generate (outside that which I do for my job, which I understand before I start does not belong to me in the same sense). If I were Lucas, and were I ever accosted by someone who would suggest that anyone other than myself had the right to make decisions about what I could and could not do with the Star Wars films, I suspect my reply would begin with "How dare you ..."
What's strange is that when the recent colorized version of the Three Stooges came out, Lucas criticized that, saying they should respect the original films. He just seems to have a blind spot when it comes to his own work.I imagine he draws a distinction because the decision to do so, in the case of the Stooges films, was not being made by those who created them.

Qapla'

SSB

Not that you've advanced this argument, but when we bought tickets to see the original movies, that is all we bought -- a viewing of them. We did not, as many do try to suggest, somehow acquire partial ownership of the movies themselves just because seeing them was a formative experience, or whatever it meant to any particular person.
I'm actually in 100% agreement with you here. On other threads I've been long arguing that the makers of any new STAR TREK TV series or movies, should not listen to what the fans want. In fact, they should not give the fans what they expect. I find it pretty arrogant when people have the attitude, "I like what you did in the past, so I therefore get to control what you do in the future."

But I do think it is an insult to the fans to say, "You like that? Well I can make it even better." Like I said earlier, the Lucas of today couldn't make the same movies he did in the '70s. The original STAR WARS is a product of a very particular time in his life, working under very particular conditions, with very particular limitations. It may not be exactly what he wanted, but it is what it is. Don't try to turn it into something it isn't.

And I've said before that the "limitations" an artist has to work around sometimes inspire the greatest creativity. If Ridley Scott had had present day CGI technology at his fingertips in 1979 - it's quite likely that "Alien" would not be nearly the film that it is. The effectiveness of that movie is largely a result of what could not be seen. Scott knew that he couldn't linger on shots of the Alien creature because of it's own inherent limitations and therefore relied more heavily on the use of lighting, sound, editing, and acting to create an atmosphere of ever-building dread and horror. The result was a true classic which rewards repeated viewing. The argument could be made that the original "Star Wars" is as effective an entertainment as it is because of what Lucas was not able to show as well. I can't imagine that there are many people who - given the choice of watching only one for the rest of their lives - would choose Episode III over Episode IV - and the relative technical "limitations" of those two movies have a lot to do with why one would be chosen over the other.

The question is whether he has an obligation to perserve the integrity of the original material, in the form it was orginally released, even if it didn't completely meet his expectations.

No, the question is whether an artist has the right to finish what he began in the manner that best suits him. As Carson pointed out, and what so many fans fail (or refuse) to acknowledge, is that STAR WARS is a single story and not a collection of stories. It's hardly surprising that Lucas should want present and future generations to be able to view the saga as a unified whole, with as much stylistic continuity between episodes as possible. Given the unusual, non-chronological manner in which the films were shot it is completely understandable that Lucas would want to go back and make a few tweaks -- and let's face it, tweaking is all he's done. It's not like Harrison Ford has been digitally replaced with Bob Hoskins or one of the Backstreet Boys. So Ep. IV has a few extra digital shots... big deal. With a few exceptions I like the changes Lucas has made, and I applaud him for caring enough to have made them.

As for the Young George vs. Old George argument, I think Young George would be BLOWN AWAY by what Old George has accomplished technically, thematically, and artistically in Episodes I thru III.

I can't imagine that there are many people who - given the choice of watching only one for the rest of their lives - would choose Episode III over Episode IV - and the relative technical "limitations" of those two movies have a lot to do with why one would be chosen over the other.

Have you watched Episode IV with a six-year-old lately? Or a twelve-year-old for that matter?

Older audiences have a soft spot for the first trilogy that younger audiences do not. We are biased; they are not. The fact that you can't imagine "people" prefering Ep. III over Ep. IV says more about you than it does about the STAR WARS audience at large. Lucas knows that audience very well... it's some of the older fans that have tunnelvision.

Lucas has an obligation TO NO ONE!!!!!!!!
i dont care what you think of "young Lucas" vs " old Lucas" he has every right to do what he wants to whatever film! sure you have an opinion, but it's not a very good one.

Mr. Lucas is one person, not split into old vs young. i find that line of reasoning absurd and without merit.

Lucas has an obligation TO NO ONE!!!!!!!!
i dont care what you think of "young Lucas" vs " old Lucas" he has every right to do what he wants to whatever film! sure you have an opinion, but it's not a very good one.

Mr. Lucas is one person, not split into old vs young. i find that line of reasoning absurd and without merit.
And once again, you miss the point. I never said Lucas is two different people. I said he was a different person 30 years ago. You might want to look up the word "metaphor" in the dictionary.

And as a dramatist, Lucas has lots of obligations. He has the obligation to make the stories truthful about some aspect of the human condition. He has an obligation to make the characters believable, understandable, and consistent. He has has an obligation to make the story flow smoothly and logically. Are these legal obligations? Of course not. Do we have the right to force him to live up to those obligations? Of course not. Do we have a right to complain when he doesn't? Of course.

We can argue whether the owners of movies (or books, plays, paintings) have an obligation to preserve them in their original form. I say they do. To say movies can be reshaped to match current tastes is to reduce them to just another consumer product.

Have you watched Episode IV with a six-year-old lately? Or a twelve-year-old for that matter?

Older audiences have a soft spot for the first trilogy that younger audiences do not. We are biased; they are not. The fact that you can't imagine "people" prefering Ep. III over Ep. IV says more about you than it does about the STAR WARS audience at large. Lucas knows that audience very well... it's some of the older fans that have tunnelvision.

Funny you should ask that. I recently purchased an HD TV and borrowed "Revenge of The Sith" from a co-worker just yesterday primarily because I knew that it's an excellent DVD with which to enjoy an HD system - on a technical level. Myself, my wife, and my 6 year old daughter (who all saw the movie originally in the theater) sat down to watch it with a nice fire going in the fireplace and all the lights turned out. Of course, it looks and sounds wonderful. My daughter - at the age of 6 years and 6 months - is not old enough to discern a "qualitative" difference between Episode III and Episode IV (which we own). They all run together as far as she is concerned and they're all "entertainment" as far as she's concerned (and she'll tell you that "The Cat in The Hat", "Yours, Mine, and Ours", "Chicken Little" and "The Wizard of Oz" are all essentially equally "good" movies as far as she's concerned.). Being 6 years old and considering the fact that we didn't start watching the movie until 8:30 - she fell asleep about 30 minutes in. The fact that she fell asleep was not a "criticism" on her part, it was merely due to the fact that she was sleepy. My wife had already lost interest and gone into our bedroom to read. I came back downstairs after putting my daughter to bed and started watching the movie again. I lasted about 20 minutes. I just couldn't do it. That has nothing to do with my age. It has everything to do with the fact that - for me - "Revenge of The Sith" is an example of dramatically uncompelling, badly acted, clumsily paced storytelling. My daughter wants to try to watch the rest of it tonight - so I'll be sitting right there beside her until we finish the movie or she falls asleep. I'm a good Dad and I love sharing time with her. As she gets older, I suspect she'll develop some "discernment" on the qualitative differences between "Revenge of The Sith", "The Cat in The Hat", "The Wizard of Oz" and all the other movies she will see or has seen. I don't believe for a minute that Lucas is or should be aiming the Star Wars movies strictly toward 6 to 12 year-olds - and I think one's "inner child" can still be very much alive at the age of 30, 40, 50, or 60 - but that "inner child" shouldn't prohibit one's ability to discern what constitutes good cinematic storytelling and what doesn't - and why it doesn't.

if Davinci wants to return from the dead to repaint the Mona Lisa, he has every right to do so.
if Lucas wants to redo SW he has every right to do so. he owes NOTHING TO NO ONE.

you have a right to complain, but it does not mean you have a sound complaint which i believe you do not. your issues with Lucas make no sense.

as an Film maker he answers to no one about his content. it's up to you to like or dislike but he has no obligation to please you or to follow what you believe is right or wrong. as long as he is true to his own vison thats all that matters!

if Davinci wants to return from the dead to repaint the Mona Lisa, he has every right to do so.
if Lucas wants to redo SW he has every right to do so. he owes NOTHING TO NO ONE.

you have a right to complain, but it does not mean you have a sound complaint which i believe you do not. your issues with Lucas make no sense.

as an Film maker he answers to no one about his content. it's up to you to like or dislike but he has no obligation to please you or to follow what you believe is right or wrong. as long as he is true to his own vison thats all that matters!


Any answers yet on the "flaws" in "American Graffiti"?;)

if Davinci wants to return from the dead to repaint the Mona Lisa, he has every right to do so.
if Lucas wants to redo SW he has every right to do so. he owes NOTHING TO NO ONE.

I think you mean he owes nothing to ANYONE. But don't let me put words in your keyboard. If DaVinci came back and repainted the Mona Lisa that would be fine (and darned impressive, to boot!). But if he came back and started repainting the Mona Lisa on the same canvas, covering the classic masterpiece, you can bet there are lots of people who would have a problem with that.

Again, I don't think people's biggest problem with the Star Wars OT DVDs is that Lucas re-made them. I think the biggest problem is that supposedly the original verisons won't be released on DVD. If the originals WERE released on DVD (and heck, Lucas could do double-sided discs, with a version containing his newest revisions on one side and the originals on the other) this whole issue would be moot.


you have a right to complain, but it does not mean you have a sound complaint which i believe you do not. your issues with Lucas make no sense.

as an Film maker he answers to no one about his content. it's up to you to like or dislike but he has no obligation to please you or to follow what you believe is right or wrong. as long as he is true to his own vison thats all that matters!

Kinda like your issues with the LOTR trilogy (especially in comparison with the Star Wars OT remakes)? You sure go out of your way to bash on those, but heaven forbid anyone does the same with the Star Wars remakes.

if Davinci wants to return from the dead to repaint the Mona Lisa, he has every right to do so.

Actually, he doesn't. He painted the picture on commission. It is now owned by the Louvre. He has no legal right to do anything with it.
as an Film maker he answers to no one about his content. it's up to you to like or dislike but he has no obligation to please you or to follow what you believe is right or wrong. as long as he is true to his own vison thats all that matters!
This sort of artistic fundamentalism is why so much of modern art is worthless. Yes, he has no obligation to me, personally, but if a filmmaker isn't trying to communicate something to an audience, what is the point? To say "I'll do what I want" with no consideration of his audience is nothing but cinematic masturbation. (Not that I'm accusing Lucas of doing this. I'm just pointing out you can't take the audience's expectations and reactions out of the equation.)